Was AOL letter, now forking

[Jeremy Fowler]

C is hardly a dead language. Almost EVERYTHING in Linux is written in C,
including the kernel! Plus there is a new C standard (C99) that proves the fact
that C is still widely used.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kclug at marauder.illiana.net
[mailto:owner-kclug at marauder.illiana.net]On Behalf Of Adam Turk
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 10:14 AM
To: DensmoreB at ctbsonline.com; kclug at kclug.org
Subject: RE: Was AOL letter, now forking

Can you deny that C is now a dead language? Which, yes one can write code in and
it will generally compile on any compiler, but it is being left at the wayside
for tasks it used to be the one and only best use for. Why? It can't change. The
analogy goes something like this: A mason who makes his own bricks is asked to
build a tall tower. He begins with a single brick, which he works with lovingly
and molds to fit the space. He does this for every brick in the base. One can
not build a tower on wet bricks, so the base must first solidify. Once the base
has solidified, he molds another layer of bricks and so on. Eventually, the
bricks at the base, unchanging and hard, are uninteresting and only noticed in
passing. The bricks with which the mason is currently working are the ones that
can change to meet the need. Thus the still-wet bricks are the living art, the
canvas, the frontier. No one will forget the base, but it can no longer meet the
changing need of the current. It is rigid.

Lamentable that.

The point is, (which I should have qualified) the unstandardized system can
change, is art. Is the Unix kernel prevalent on PCs? No, the Linux kernel is
prevalent. (not as much as it ought to be) When things on a standards-fearing
system are changed, that system is thrown out for not conforming. Even if it met
a need that was valid. I should not say that standards are wrong. We need a
base. But, I do not believe this consortium has created general standards. These
are specific standards, meant only to optimize for greatest commercial value.
Least cost to most profit.

Summation of Argument:
-The cutting edge is the realm of the artist, the hacker, the pioneer
-General standards are a necessity for productivity and structured change,
specific standards are oppressive and choking.
-Big business can fill the *nix end-user vaccum, but it will still suck.

Adam

Flames are annoying. So 8^P .

You swing at the Sun.  You miss.  The Sun swings.  He hits you with a
575MB disk!  You read the 575MB disk.  It is written in an alien
tongue and cannot be read by your tired Sun-2 eyes.  You throw the
575MB disk at the Sun.  You hit!  The Sun must repair your eyes.  The
Sun reads a scroll.  He hits your 130MB disk!  He has defeated the
130MB disk!  The Sun reads a scroll.  He hits your Ethernet board!  He
has defeated your Ethernet board!  You read a scroll of "postpone until
Monday at 9 AM".  Everything goes dark...

>>> "Brian Densmore" <DensmoreB at ctbsonline.com> 02/06/02 08:12AM >>>
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Turk

>Brian, building and refining on Brad's point,
>is most certainly correct; however, it should
>also be added that a new system is dead as soon
>as there are standards which are strongly enforced
>and adhered to. ...
I don't buy that reasoning. Standards help to create
a common working ground and every computer program written
conforms to standards. Without standards, my C code wouldn't
necessarily compile on your C compiler and vice versa.

>I don't think many will wish to return to the
>intellectual oppression of standards. 8^P
Of course this whole reply could just have been flame-bait. And I love
a good hot-fiery bowl of Chili, so bring it on.
;')

>Thus spake the master programmer:
>        "Let the programmers be many and the managers be few —
>             then all be productive"
>                -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Brian